Republic CEO’s religious message to employees

It is fine to be religious, but before espousing these beliefs at one’s company, a CEO like Bryan Bedford should ask himself, how would I feel if my boss continually expressed his religious opinions to me in official communications, and his beliefs were different from my own? For example, what if Mr. Bedford’s boss was Jewish, Muslim or a Hindu? Hindus don’t believe in a single god, they believe in many gods. Or a Shinto, who believes that spirits reside in animals, plants and rocks.

If hearing this from your boss would feel a little strange, then it probably is not a good idea to do it yourself.

Bill Hoff, Denver

This letter was published in the Nov. 23 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Perhaps…however the counter argument is that we must allow “Freedom of Religion” to become nothing more than the Freedom to the private expression alone of religion. Religion has far too many dynamic elements to be restricted to the private domain alone. Are we going to start criminalizing someone's religious expression, in public, because someone else is offended by it? If this is the case than Freedom of Religion in America is meaningless. “Freedom of Religion” its not just a private thing—beracuse it cannot be! The American public domain is not a “Religion Free” zone. Thank you, God Bless, and Happy Thanksgiving!

bellle

Are you trying to force the Christians in America (which still comprise approx. 80%) to be silent??? That has been the atheists' plan for several decades.Just say NO to them.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FX2NX3YS2ZR6NRLGM5WZJRZT2M Denis

Non-Christians are atheists? Simple minds have simple thoughts…

Sammy518

The number of non believers has gone up in recent polls, and, since someone stated Christians in America at 80%, let’s look at that. which Christians have the answer? The ones that handle snakes during services? The ones who worship the kind God in the new testament or the ruthless God of old testament that killed first born of man and beast and banished people to the desert for 40 years because they thought for themselves? Which of the 2500 different demoninations do they follow? The Christians in this country have pushed their agenda onto the world and it got us airplanes flown into buildings, the killing of soldiers on an Army base, and general hate of the the rest of the world. Some of these radical Christians in this country better sit down and shut up cause it may get a lot of us killed that don’t follow your agenda.

bellle

Notice that it's not other Religions that are trying to silence Christianity.It's people who don't want God in their lives.

phornbein

Bellle, notice that it's not other religions that are continually telling others what to believe and what dogma to follow. When I had an opportunity to work at a religious-based hospital organization, it was quite acceptable to me, even though I was of a different faith, to listen to the daily prayer and to begin meetings, etc. with prayer. That's acceptable (and expected) because it is up front–the organization is, if you will, being honest and true to their doctrine. For a non-faith based organization to do that, is not right because it's expected that there will be no religious discrimination and that all religions will be respected and accepted. When a CEO brings his or her personal beliefs into the organization, there is an implication that those beliefs are the “preferred” beliefs, if not the required beliefs, and those that do not have the same beliefs will not be welcome at that organization. It is the fact that the boss is expressing those beliefs that make it unwelcome. If a co-worker chooses to begin his or her meetings with, for example, a christian prayer, if I choose to not participate, I can do so without worrying about any repercussions. If my boss does it, then I have to worry whether or not I'll have a job at the end of the day.It all comes down to whether or not the organization is faith-based (although, there are times when flying, that it feels faith-based, e.g., pilots “absorbed” in their laptops…).I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: How do you know your is the right religion and mine is the wrong one?

phornbein

Have you read any Atheist literature? Or any Atheist plan to silence Christians? I think one of the things you are confused about is this, other religions have nothing against Christians–some of my best friends are Christians–it's the proselytizing that is offensive to me and others. Again, we're back to my question to you: how do you know your religion is the right one and that mine is the wrong one?

bellle

phornbein….again, the question is: do you really want to know the Truth?Or are you just wanting to play 'games'??Based on your answer, I will decide whether to expend the effort to help you.

IronmanCarmichael

It's so simple; it's incredible that people make such a thing about it (I exclude Larry Bell because it's obvious he can't help it, with his almost touchingly childlike assurance that he alone understands what constitutes “Truth” and “playing 'games'”). You go to your church, I'll go to mine, and nonbelievers get to sleep in on the Sabbath.

phornbein

It's not the expression of religion, per se, that we have to deal with, it's by whom and the context. If I'm at a school conference, I'm not expecting to hear religion nor do I expect seminars to open with prayer. However, as has happened to me, a conference was sponsored by one of the Jesuit schools. The fact that there was prayer and open expressions of religion was not offensive to me because it was not unexpected. I was one of many who did not actively participate in the prayer and I felt no discomfort.The flip side is this: if one's boss begins a meeting with prayer (and the organization is not faith-based), I would feel very uncomfortable. I would be unable to not participate for fear of losing my job, but I would also feel very uncomfortable if we were of different religions.

phornbein

For the sake of discussion, yes, I want to know the truth. But please, don't simply tell me what the bible says and declare that it's the truth because that's what the bible says, or that because the bible is supposedly the word of god. Don't forget that the Qu'ran was dictated to Mohammed by Allah (peace be upon Him).

bellle

phornbein…good! You say you want to know the Truth.Question: have you ever found a substantive error in the Bible?

bellle

IronmanCarmichael…..again, you are distorting what I've said.So I'll say it again.Truth is outside of you or me.God is the only source of truth.Does that help you?

IronmanCarmichael

Not really, Larry, but if it helps you to repeat yourself, it doesn’t hurt me any.

If you’re counting on the God as presented in the Bible (according to which God is vain, childish, jealous, neurotic, capricious, cruel, vindictive, grudge-ridden, defensive, insecure, lonely, power-mad, and rather silly; okay, so he supposedly gave his only son to atone for the sins of the world, but what father didn’t ever send his son out to do the dirty work he didn’t want to do himself?) to be the sole source of Truth with a capital T, I’d say you’re not only barking up the wrong tree, you’re in the wrong forest. But hey, if that’s what you need to believe, again, it’s no skin off my onions. Just don’t demand that everyone believe what you think they should.

Anonymous

Ooh-rah, Ironman!

Anonymous

Ironman….how did you get this incorrect view of God???

Secondly….do you understand who Jesus is???

Anonymous

But, bellle, at the risk of sounding obvious, how do you know “God is the only source of truth”?
How do you KNOW this is true? As you say, the “Truth is outside of you or me”.
You can BELIEVE it is true, just as I can BELIEVE it is NOT true. You cannot KNOW.
Why is it OK for you to believe as you do (and you’ll go to “heaven”) but it’s not OK for me to believe as I do (because that means I’ll go … somewhere else)?
You are a child, bellle.

illegalhater

None of you KNOW the truth. NONE OF YOU!

http://www.dailyhowler.com/ cameron greer

Belle, does that mean you and your fellow thumpers and jumpers are going to quit interpreting the bible?

Anonymous

Cameron……you misunderstood.
God is the source of truth; the Bible is authored by God (through inspired men).
So the Bible is the source of Truth.

See the sequence of logical reasoning?

western slope

if you are so uncomfortable working for this business owner then why not find another job where the business owner is not a christian. this is the smpliest solution or maybe just to satisfy your beleif system this business owner should shut down his business and put himself, you and all the other employees out on the streets.

Anonymous

That’s a very valid point. It’s the owner’s business and his right. I would submit, however, that he needs to be upfront about it. I wouldn’t be happy if, during the interview process, nothing about religion was mentioned; however, upon starting to work, I discovered that it was, in essence, a religious organization. If I didn’t feel comfortable with the particular dogma espoused at work, I would quit, but it doesn’t strike me as being appropriate–the sort of thing that could lead to law suits.

Pete

You’ve missed the point of the letter entirely. Let’s say you had a Hindu boss, who made a point of openly inserting Hindu religious beliefs into every facet of his business, even going as far as to hire other Hindus for key management positions. Would you, as a good Christian, a) seek another job or b) find the boss’ religious badgering to be inappropriate.

The comical thing is that the same people who don’t think this is a big deal will start writing angry letters to the Post everytime a clerk at a store fails to say “Merry Christmas”

Anonymous

You miss the point, western slope. It is not appropriate for a business owner (of a non-religious entity) to infuse an implied religious affiliation into the workplace where employees may be of other (or no) religious faiths.

phornbein

Wow, where to start; how about Genesis and the whole creation myth. Or a self-contradiction:”JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.”Or from the old testament:”EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.”

Pete

Hmmm..ok.1. If one takes the Bible as literal truth, then the earth is only 6,000 years old? Belle, is that how old you believe the earth to be.2. If Genesis is literal truth, then how….EXACTLY did Adam and Eve's kids have children of their own? There's no mention of God using clay or ribs to create wives for Adam and Eve's kids, so either there were OTHER human beings, or there was some incest going on.

phornbein

Maybe I've been suffering a delusion all this time: I thought they didn't interpret the bible, but took it at face value–literally.

theoldgrouch

Good morning phornbein,If the censors permit, I thank you for the email reply to my earlier postings, and the very cogent thoughts expressed therein. And, I would also thank peterpi as well. You both are well possessed of the quality of reasonableness, and rational understanding of all that, in and of religion, remains personal, and is always to be respected in the individual. Again, in the Gospels we read: “Other sheep have I that are not of THIS fold.” And, while “sheep stealing/rustling” is something of a “game” among many segments of the spectrum of Western cults, I myself prefer to recognize the boundary lines.Aside from the fact that there are a great many “substantive errors” in the Bible, especially that part known to us as the “Old Testament” – the book itself having been compiled from many previous sources, both oral and transcribed in ancient fashion, over a period of several Centuries, even millenia – many of which are coming to light because of the research of Jewish Archeologists in Israel, an understanding of the vast difference between literality and allegory, as well as the ability to perceive the essential congruities in the mythologies of almost all human societies, does require both education and a wide range of reading, not generally found in those for whom the Bible is regarded as some kind of “God written” object. This is, perhaps, best illustrated in Islam, where Al Qran is regarded as having been “dictated by an Angel” to Mohammed, and as containing the absolutely whole and final answer to every human question. Today's Taliban seeks to destroy all evidence of other human perceptions, or representations, of “religion”; just as so many “Fundamentalists” today keep insisting that anything and everything they cannot/do-not find in the Bible either is “not true”, or doesen't exist in human reality.In some ways, this can be amusing. In others, however, it becomes obnoxious. To have someone insist that 2000+ years of Christian history, Tradition, Worship, Witness, and Martydrom is, somehow, “not true”; and to absolutely refuse to even read the works of Christian historians and Theologians, because they (in that person's own words) “didn't do enough research”; while at one and the same time making invidious and insulting judgments concerning the personality and character of those presenting opportunity to learn, certainly can, and does, tend to provoke very unfavorable response, generally speaking. There are many, many, many sources of truth, as all intelligent people know. But, that aside. Since of course, it is also always true that those who don't want to learn, won't; and those who know all there is to know about everything already, can't.As to the “substantive error” matter: Vide: Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, THE BIBLE UNEARTHED, Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, The Free Press/Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York, NY, 2001.Perhaps one additional comment might be allowed: For Christians, the New Testament Gospels contain words spoken by Him, who Christians believe is the Son of God. Among these we find this admonition: “Know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Here we find a basic structural difference between the notion that Truth is “outside” and the reality that Truth can be “inside” you and me, as well as everyone else. Just as we find the affirmation of the reality that there are many sources of truth, any and all of which are open to human discovery and internalization. And thus, Christianity is, in actuality, the thinking man's religion.Perhaps the saddest part of it all is the deliberate blindness – and obstinate refusal to accept truth in the political/social/cultural area – of those fanatics who fail to understand the reality of how it has been, and is, our unique American WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE that is basically responsible for their own existence, not to mention their growth and increasingly noisesome presence today. (Again, please excuse the all capitals; but italics are not available.) They want a pseudo-Theocracy for themselves, without the slightest inknling of what it is, as well as without the slightest inkling of how they wouldn't even exist in this world today, had America been even pseudo-Theocratic over the past 200 years.But, again, I might quote a Gospel: “The blind leading the blind, and they shall both fall into the pit.”

Anonymous

As always, a pleasure. In my previous post to Mr. Bellle, I probably should’ve kept my quotes to the new testament…

phornbein

I never thought of Adam and Eve in that context before–that's a very intriguing thought!

bellle

illegalhater…you're right. Without God, no human could ever know Truth ('evolution' wouldn't provide the concept of truth).So I agree with your premise. That's why God communicated about Himself to us through the Bible.Otherwise we would fabricate our own god (probably to be like us; yuk).

Anonymous

What I find really fascinating about this whole line of postings is, simply, the way in which you, Larry, conveniently forget so much of what you wrote over time on the old Rocky Mountain News blog; including your posting in reply to some points I made that, ” . . . I (you) wouldn’t worship a God who didn’t . . . ” – in effect meet your specifications as to all the laws, rules, and regulations that you kept insisting needed to be enforced on others, as “Christian”; and were to be found in the Hebrew Old Testament.

Now, you tell us about “. . . fabricat(ing) our own god (probably to be like us; yuk)”, as if that wasn’t exactly what you have been doing all along.

I never even suspected that you had such a wonderful sense of humor.

Anonymous

As in, “…be like us; yuk, yuk, yuk)”

bellle

phornbein….please don't confuse your inability to understand what God is saying, and assume that you then can become the 'judge' of the validity of His scripture. That would making yourself to be god, and demoting the true God. If you have questions about God, I suggest that you join a solid Bible teaching church. They will be happy to help you understand scripture.If you are truly seeking God, you will find Him. But if we reject Him, He will reject us. Best wishes in your search for Truht.

phornbein

So what you're saying is that when we mortals find contradictions in the bible, it's because we don't understand what god is saying. You're begging the question, and I actually thought you would attempt to answer the question I asked without relying on the bible as your sole source. Talk about waste of time….

bellle

phornbein…..why does it trouble you that God is more intelligent than you or me??
I think he has done a really good job of coming down to our level, in authoring His instruction book (Bible).
Don’t you?
If you FULLY comprehend the mind of God, then that would make phornbein to be ‘god’. Choke. (sorry)

Anonymous

I would think and hope that an omniscient, omnipresent being would be able to avoid contradiction in his instruction book. It’s almost like the instruction manuals that come with certain products designed in the US but manufactured in Japan, e.g., “The notebook having horizontal ruled line and being to fold up is the best for arranging sentences.” (www.oddee.com).

bellle

phornbein …..so you have set yourself up as the ‘judge’ of God???
And you think you get to decide what is a contradiction, or not??

Isn’t that rather arrogant?

Are you really going to continue shaking your small fist in the face of your Creator??
Why??

Anonymous

Your comment presupposes that I believe in the same creator you do.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FX2NX3YS2ZR6NRLGM5WZJRZT2M Denis

“Question: have you ever found a substantive error in the Bible?”Yes, the stupid claim of a worldwide flood which has no corroborating physical evidence. Game, set, match. Loser dismissed.

Anonymous

Denis……you might be in error.
The worldwide flood is still in question among honest scientists (because no one was there to observe).
Also…..is that substantive? Or just nit-picking??

And even if it is an error….only one error in all those pages?
So you reject the entire Book???
Is that being fair?

Anonymous

Sure is being fair. Don’t forget, the author is omniscient and all-knowing…

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FX2NX3YS2ZR6NRLGM5WZJRZT2M Denis

“And even if it is an error….only one error in all those pages?”

LOL, you truly out-do yourself with this one. You’re telling us God wrote the book, but we shouldn’t dismiss it if s/he made a simple mistake about there being a global flood?

The frantic endless bailing you have to do to keep your simplistic belief system afloat is unbelievable.

And no, bellle, I did not say there was one error. I picked out one glaring, unbelievably silly error that can leave no sane individual in question as to whether the bible is infallible.

phornbein

Damn, Denis, I missed that one…Good pick-up!

phornbein

Wasn't there a major flood around 5000BC that inundated the Red Sea region? I seem to recall something like that that may correlate to flood; however, that was a fair number of years ago in an introductory Geology class….

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FX2NX3YS2ZR6NRLGM5WZJRZT2M Denis

There was indeed, and the Atlantis myth and Babylonian flood myths may well relate to that event, among others. Or to other floods. After all, we are talking about the most widespread and deadly form of natural disaster, after all, which easily explains the frequency of flood stories in various cultures, even though the floods in them differ widely. The pertinent fact here is that there is absolutely no physical evidence of a global flood within the last 6,000 years, or the last 6,000,000 years for that matter. And belllle can respond with his usual “respectful” (ha!), passive-aggressive “but the Bible says” mumbles, but he can’t provide any factual evidence because none exists.

Anonymous

Thanks Denis. It’s nice to know that I still some neurons firing…

And a tip of the hat to you!

Terry

Silence–quite often speaks far louder than any mere words. Silence is a lot of things but it is not neutral, thus a (religious) bias is inevitable. Silencing religious expression in the public domain is the action of a tyrannical people. Because of the multidimensional aspects of religion, Freedom of Religion never has been, or could be, Freedom of (Private) Religion! I don’t want anyone forced to experience a religious based message–but neither do I want the government to silence those who would make a religious message–whether that message was for private or public consumption. I fear we are increasingly leaning is this direction. When our zeal to be tolerant, is the cornerstone of our rigid intolerance–can we still be called just..?. “I don’t like ???, therefore your positive or proselytizing expression of ??? is offensiveto me, and I should not have to experience such expression in the public domain”…Freedom of expression, religion and–ultimately everything else– cannot exist under such a precedent. If we only have Freedom of Religion in private, we cannot–and do not have–Freedom of Religion. Demanding religion be kept private is as discriminatory as demanding everyone adhere to a particular religious belief. America must do better. Again, I thank you, wish you God’s Blessings and a very Happy Thanksgiving.

Anonymous

I really have doubts the censors here will allow it to be put on the blog; but I did feel it necessary to write Larry Bell a little note concerning his remarks about ” . . . fabricat(ing) our own god, etc. . . .”

Reminds me of good old Yogi Bera, and his one about, “deja vu all over again”

Oh! And Pete: You’ve hit the nail solidly square on the head there, with your last observation.. And, leading the van of those crying about “persecution of Christians/Christianity” will be . . . ? Yep! Good Old Larry! That ridiculous little tempest in a doll’s teapot went on for more than a month back on the old Rocky blog; “Season’s Greetings”, or the like, winding up somewhere just short of one of the lowest levels in Dante’s Inferno – for all those “Absolutely-True-Red-White-and-Blue-Christians” everyone else is supposed to be trying to “suppress”, or whatever.

Isn’t anthropomorphizing God FUN?!?

Dee

Question: If I were a business owner that was jewish, muslim, hindu, or some other “non-Christian” religion, should I be forced to give my employees a day off for Christmas even though I don’t recognize or accept Christ or Christianity?

Anonymous

I wouldn’t think so, as long as you were upfront when hiring them.

IronmanCarmichael

To paraphrase a favorite Christian catchphrase, it was Cain and Abel, not Jane and Abel. Adam and Eve must have had interesting grandchildren. And they say same-sex couples can't procreate! Or maybe Eve was her own daughter-in-law. (Remember Faye Dunaway in “Chinatown”? “She's my sister AND my daughter!”) And they say the idea of man evolving from lower life forms is “undignified.”

darlamas

First of all, it is perfectly OK for you not to want to be a Christian. We have freedom of religion in America. And it is perfectly OK to want to be a Christian too. Christianity can't be judged as a religion by every person's practice of it, any more than any other religion because there is such imperfection is humans. We are all imperfect. The Bible has the written blueprint of Christianity. The God of the old testament is the same one as the new testament. There isn't any place in the bible that God commands the killing of a first born child, is there a verse that you can point to? And my understanding of the dessert experience for the Israelites is not that it was a matter of them thinking for themselves that God had a problem with, it was a matter of not taking on the enemies that needed to be fought before they could enter the promised land.When radical Islamists burn the American flag and call America the great satan, I haven't noticed that they have distinguished any particular citizen, whether religious or not. For that matter, radical Islam kills and terrorizes more Muslims than any other group of religious people. A question for you: who decides who goes to heaven?

phornbein

Rolling on the floor, laughing out loud! Well, not really, but a good chuckle is always appreciated….

john connore

sammy that was awesome

darlamas

Excellent question, Dee! I notice that almost no one volunteers to work on Christmas, seems as though people like a day off, no matter what the reason. No employer is forced to give it as a paid holiday. It is fine if you don’t want to.

Anonymous

You might be surprised how many people actually do work on Christmas Day, darlamas; a number of people find they can get quite a lot done in a quiet workplace free from distraction, and a number of other people work that day because they don’t have a choice. What surprises me is how fashionable it’s become for so-called Christians to spend the season leading up to it, and perhaps the day itself, grumbling and sulking because others don’t refer to the time of year the way they want them to. Talk about self-defeating.

And if I may be permitted to repeat for perhaps the 68th time, it was the Christians who took December 25 away from the pagans, not the other way around.

Anonymous

And many pagans resent that. The Holy Roman Church (as distinct from today’s Catholic Church) stole everything from everyone (hyperbole) in their attempt to convert the pagan.

I would agree with Ironman, many work on Christmas, and many of us, who don’t celebrate Christmas, have volunteered to work so that our cohorts could have that day off.

john connore

Belle, your proof that atheist have higher IQs than religious folk. Just google religion and IQ, almost every study done show’s non religious types to be more intelligent. Wow what a shocker

Anonymous

Mr. Connore……what does IQ have to do with a person getting into Heaven???

john connore

Belle, having a high IQ, not always but most of the time means you have a better understanding of how things work. Atheist, being more intelligent and having a better understanding of things in general are far less likely to be brainwashed or hold on to dangerous myths. Good men will do good things, evil men will do evil things, but for good men to do evil things that requires religion. Now Belle try readin a science book or something evidence based, your ignorance is annoying

bellle

Sammy…..respectfully…..how did you get such an erroneous view of religion??Do you really believe the things you said??Have you done any research to verify if your views are true??What benefit would there be for you to believe untruth?

IronmanCarmichael

It's interesting to note where people's loyalties lie. Matthew 6:1 says public prayer is wrong, and yet many Christians insist on defending public prayer as a “free speech” issue.

bellle

IronmanCarmichael…..respectfully…..you really need to join a Bible teaching church, and start to read the Bible.You have badly misquoted Matthew 6:1. Please don't remain in the dark, and deceived.

phornbein

Just curious, but couldn't you have just said that his paraphrase is, by your reading of the passage, not accurate? From his post, I can't get to where you think he needs to join a bible-teaching church and start to read the bible (he clearly is reading it, otherwise he wouldn't know the passage to paraphrase). It also doesn't sound like he's either in the dark or deceived. It sounds like he's commenting on the hypocrisy of public prayer in the context of the First Amendment. I believe that custom uses public prayer to ask for divine guidance (or whatever) in whatever the group is undertaking. As I've understood the biblical passage, it refers to making the appearance of being righteous. Now, it's my belief that public prayer should be reserved only for church because it strikes me that any prayer in public is done for the appearance of religiosity. Communication with whatever deity one wishes should be done, if not in private, then silently and to one's self–there is no need for public displays, especially if one accepts the premise of an omniscient deity. So, in a group undertaking, it seems to me that a word from the leader about having each individual ask for whatever divine guidance they want is more appropriate.

adodge

What Matthew 6 1 referes to is the heart. Jesus was saying don't pray or do good things in public just to look good in front of men. It says nothing about do not pray in public ever. Another case of lefties misquoting the Bible and Christians doing nothing about it. Happy thanks giving to all.

phornbein

I would agree with you regarding Matthew; but what about public prayer (and I think–not sure–that this is primarily addressing secular events)? It seems to me that, for some, it is from the heart; but, I can't imagine that everyone (e.g., the opening of Congress) is doing more than following along. Is it better for those individuals (from a religious perspective) to not participate?

bellle

phornbein….it sounds like you want to eliminate prayer from the Senate every morning?Why???What's your agenda? Are you trying to slowly drive religion and God out of America?Please be honest.

Tim

There’s no reasoning with religious zealots. Best to simply ignore their rambling….

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FX2NX3YS2ZR6NRLGM5WZJRZT2M Denis

Thanks for your condescending fundamentalist viewpoint. As always, really not worth a thing.

IronmanCarmichael

You're not wrong about “the heart,” but the line is crossed when the prayer becomes a performance. Or a demand–blatant or implied–to follow in lockstep, which is the point of the letter that inspired this particular thread.As for “Christians doing nothing about it,” it's been obvious for over 25 years that there's been a Culture of Conspicuous Christianity compromising, rationalizing, or just plain ignoring the teachings of Jesus–while continuing to give lip service to them–in blatant pursuit of political power. “…as we forgive those who trespass against us” has been replaced with “Bring 'em on!” Petty irrelevancies like the so-called War On Christmas–when I was little, which wasn't yesterday, the phrase daubed on gas station and store windows was usually “Season's Greetings,” and nobody felt threatened–to shocking abuses of power like the Archdiocese of Baltimore's recent attempt at blackmailing the federal government into denouncing same-sex marriage show Christianity in a more unflattering light than atheism ever could. (Once upon a time it was more important to obey the Ten Commandments rather than display them.)

adodge

I agree some Christians come across as rude. It is simply human nature I guess. We, as humans in general are not very good. It is frustrating for me to hear Catholics grouped in with Christians. The two are very different in most ways with a belief in Christ to link the two.

adodge

Thank you. Typical lefty response.

Anonymous

When I go to work I should not be obliged to listen to religious nonsense and keep my opinion to myself because of fear of losing my job. If it is not a religious institution they should keep religion out of the workplace in all official contexts. If my coworker talks to me about religion in a private context, no problem. The problem is that there is a subtle coercion taking place when an official meeting starts with a religious note by the boss. This is plainly harrasment and should be treated as such.I see the same people casting their pearls to swine. bellle and robtf are incapable of reason so why bother?That reminds me of Psalms 26:4-5; Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like to him.Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.My take on this. A fool that can learn is needed in order to not be foolish in answering a fool; yet. when you answer the fool who has the conceit of mistaking his state of mind (certainty misidentified as faith) as a reflection on the state of truth, you are truly like him yourself. These people cannot be reasoned with and they never present any evidence of reason in their discourse. They can form opinions and ideas, yet they clearly cannot think in any semblance of a rational manner. They waste their days in fear of what they believe and believe that everyone should be so fearful and that that fear is a mark of inclusion in knowing the truth. They know neither big truths nor little truths. They have no non-emotional criteria for the establishment of belief. They present no evidence of fact. They only judge and thus invoke judgement upon themselves, as in the verse “Judge not lest thou shalt also be judged.” They claim to get answers from a book of answers that was written by many men over thousands of years, not gods, This book was assembled by committee. They will not research the real archeolgical history and language of the bible yet they will claim they know God’s intent through their translation of it. They probably get their ideas from the pastors and priests that they extend this God-like infallibility to. They are not thinkers. Yet we persist in treating them as though they were. Who then is the fool. You’all (southern-plural-you-drawl) who are being trolled mercilessly and perhaps having a little fun trolling too :). There are two conversations here, one to those that think and another empty of content being repeated in every religion oriented letter by those that are arrogant and self-righteous and believe themselves to be infallible in their beliefs. It is not God they believe to be infallible, they need to pray so that God sets things straight as they should be. They believe that they control God through their prayers, they truly believe themselves to be powerful in spite of their boogyman fears (apologies to the Bugi tribe in Indonesia). Indeed they are truly ignorant in the degree they believe they are right.

Anonymous

And that should be the final word in this thread (who can top it?).

bellle

randall….you went off onto a rather lengthy unrelated diatribe.

Question: you have the freedom to choose what company you want to work for.
So why should you get to control an entire company??
That is the issue.

Anonymous

For someone who speaks to others concerning “choice”, Larry, you certainly show a very large measure of self-contradiction in nearly everything you offer. NO ONE, on this blog, or anywhere else, is attempting to prevent you, or anyone else, from making the choice to call yourself “Christian”, or to otherwise interfere with YOUR “exercise of religion”. And, your comment to “randall” is ridiculous, in light of the simple fact that at NO TIME, and in NO POSTING here, has “control of an entire company” ever even been actually discussed.

Indeed, “randall” stuck very closely to the basics of the matter, as most of those here fully well recognize. And, while he may be perceived as having generalized a bit too much about “religious people”, he certainly has very accurately described the tone and content of your constant insistence that YOU KNOW – better than anyone else around – what “God means”, or what “the Bible says”, both areas in which you are woefully unprepared, woefully mistaken, and generally woefully – if arrogantly – ignorant.

You speak of “randall”, and others, as “hav(ing) the freedom to choose”. And, while you presently limit this to the area of “what company you want to work for”, nevertheless you constantly refer to “making the right choice” in the area of religion as well. And, when so doing, you also constantly insist on the notion that YOU should get to control that choice – and all other choices as well. And, while presenting this form of arrogantly egotistical, and very insulting, nonsense as “Christian”, you also use derogatory terms towards not only the persons who do not agree with you, but also towards the sound, and well presented, documentary facts, and informational sources offered by those who make THEIR OWN CHOICES differently.

Isn’t it about time you came to the understanding that YOU – having made whatever “choice” you have made – are obligated to recognize not only the RIGHT of everyone else to make his/her own choice, in religion as well as in anything else; and that you are also obligated to RESPECT that choice; IF, that is, YOU want yours to be respected in turn? That however,is of course, is entirely up to you. But, I do believe you would receive a lot less in the way of “diatribe” – as you put it – were you to attempt to recognize the necsssity, and make an effort in the right direction.

phornbein

Sure, why not? I don't believe a prayer at the start of the Senate every morning is appropriate in a secular organization.Now, help me out here. I'm not too sure how you made the leap from public prayer in secular institutions to an attempt to drive religion and god out of America.Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to constantly refer to religion and god and the bible? Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

phornbein

As is often the case, Ironman, you have expressed things far better than I! I think your comments address my question a post or two back.

sthomas812

Who. Cares. If you are a Christian, follow your own rules, and worry about yourself. If you're not, follow your own, or society's code. Simple.Don't be a hypocrite, and being in a position of power does not give you the authority to pressure others into believing as you do, or don't.

Anonymous

sthomas812…..do you have any concern whether a person gets into Heaven, or not???
Would you leave a person in a burning house? Or warn them to get out?
Remember….we are talking about where a person will spend eternity. Very important, right?

bellle

phornbein……this is where you make your error. America was founded by Christians. Approximately 80% are Christians. So why does Phornbein think he has the right to drive Christianity out of the Senate, and out of America????? And what would happen to America is he got his wish??

phornbein

The first wave of conquerors were christian. The founding fathers were, by their own admission, deists. It's stated (ratified by the senate in the Treaty of Tripoli) that we're not a christian nation. The purported support for this myth is the 1892 decision in the Church of the Trinity v. US–which dealt with “the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens…to perform labor.” Justice Brewer delivered the opinion and his opinion contains dicta about Christianity and the US. Dicta cannot be used as precedent, they are not relevant to the case at hand and are simply the opinion of the Justice writing the decision. Note: They cannot be used as precedent.Since christianity is not in the Senate, I can't drive it out. Nothing was said about America. Get your nose out of the bible and read something else. You might learn something.

IronmanCarmichael

That's exactly what I mean; thank you, adodge, for the example. Christianity has become this elite and exclusive club (no Catholics allowed!). The most basic definition of “Christian,” it seems to me, is a person who lives his or her life according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, who deliberately was born and died in humiliating circumstances (perhaps to illustrate that he who humbles himself will be exalted–and vice versa) and taught forgiveness, inclusiveness, and loving one's enemies. The contemporary–Falwell-era and beyond–Fundamentalist Christian offers nothing but specious rationalizations for doing the exact opposite (“I'm not perfect, therefore I'm not obligated to live by the tenets of my own faith”); and scoffs at the notion that Jesus was a “weak, wimpy” seeker of peace who when seized by the Roman soldiers ordered his disciples to “Put away your swords,” preferring to think of Jesus as a gun-toting, big-business-loving, homosexuality-obsessed, war-loving Reagan Republican. If it's true that Jesus hated sin, it's equally true that Jesus wouldn't quantify sin the way so many of his self-professed followers do (“Don't get me wrong, we're all flawed sinners, it's just that homosexuality is worse”). In fact, the biblical Jesus come across as much more admirable–at least more solid in his own moral convictions–than the biblical God.Still think I need that Bible class, Larry? And why aren't Catholics Christians? Aside from the irrelevant details of the Catholic Mass, what exactly creates this presumed chasm between Catholicism and Christianity? What about Presbyterians? Episcopalians? Lutherans? (I'd think “a belief in Christ” would be a pretty strong link.)

tomfromthenews

Thank you, phorn, for not letting bellle drop in, throw a bomb, and leave.The founding fathers, whatever their religion, did not establish America as a Christian nation. Their intent was specifically to keep religion from having anything to do at all with governing the nation. Government run by the church was what they were specifically fleeing when they came here.You're right. Bellle needs to read something else for a change.

bellle

phornbein…could you tell us which of the founding fathers were deists (by your statement)??We need to check the accuracy of your statement (hope you don't mind).And please stick to the issue we are discussing. No need to use personal attacks. That shows lack of support for a person's viewpoint. Thanks.

bellle

Tom…see my reply to Phorn.You're right, the government is not to establish a religion.But….a small group of citizens (including a few atheist editorial posters) dodn't have a right to stop the vast majority from practicing our faith in public.Right?

No one wants to stop anyone from “practicing their faith”, not even “in public”. Though how anyone can reconcile the MANY “one, true” religions at odds in our world is madness incarnate. Please keep your faith to yourself and stop trying to tell someone else that their religion (or lack thereof) is wrong.I shake my head and wonder and recall the ultimate sanity of one of my favorite poets on the subject. Allow me to quote the entire poem, for it needs to be heard again in our world. It is “Thoughts About the Christian Doctrine of Eternal Hell” by the late great Stevie Smith:”Is it not interesting to seeHow the Christians continuallyTry to separate themselves in vainFrom the doctrine of eternal pain? They cannot do it,They are committed to it,Their Lord said it,They must believe it. So the vulnerable body is stretched without pityOn flames forever. Is this not pretty? The religion of ChristianityIs mixed of sweetness and cruelty.Reject this Sweetness for she wearsA smoky dress out of hell fires. Who makes a god, who pains him thus?It is the Christian religion does. Oh oh have none of it,Blow it away, have done with it.”Amen.

bellle

phornbein…can we trust the websites you send us to??How do we know they are trustworthy, and truthful???

phornbein

But be careful; the internet is nothing but an evil plot, Bellle. All the websites on the internet were designed by evil doers to lure us straight to hell. You can't trust any site, even the ones that purport to be christian–they're even more sinister because they're dressed up to look honest.Trust only in your bible. You'll be happier.

phornbein

So go find your own.

bellle

Tomfrom the news……a question:If there are two conflicting statements…..can both of them be true??

bellle

Phornbein…..why can't we continue in a civil discussion, together seeking the truth??Rather than resorting to sarcasm and derision, when we lack support for our viewpoint??The sources I had researched indicated that only two of the Founders of America were possibly Deists. So naturally I must question the validity of your sources.How can we determine which source is True??

tomfromthenews

No, they can't both be true. But you ignore another equally plausible possibility: that NEITHER of them is true. When many versions of “one, true” religion and god are at odds, their passionate arguments tend to drown (and cancel) each other out.”Oh oh have none of it,Blow it away, have done with it.”

bellle

Tomfromthenews……yes, everyone agrees that two contradicting viewpoints may both be untrue.So…it's not clear what you are trying to say.Are you trying to say that there is no 'absolute truth'???

tomfromthenews

Simply that the “absolute truth” that you espouse (and daily admonish other to adopt at peril of their “soul”) may not be the correct one; indeed that NO “absolute truth” regarding a Supreme Being may be true. Morality as a concept is human, after all. “There is no good or bad, but thinking makes it so” as Sheakepeare said.

theoldgrouch

Absolute Truth is absolutely Transcendent. NO human being possesses it. NO human being can ever express it, as such. For humans, ALL truth is relative. It is relative simply because ALL humans are limited by the restraints of language/vocabulary; and NO human language/vocabulary is, in any sense whatsoever, “universal”, or “absolute”.One of the fundamentals of Eastern Orthodox Christian expression is found in the paradoxical phrase: “Everything WE say about Him (God), He is not.”And, as the great poet and philosopher, Alexander Pope, so aptly put it: “Presume not God to scan. The proper study of mankind is man.”

bellle

Old Grouch….you have some interesting viewpoints.I'm not sure they can be proven.But you certainly have a right to your own opinon.If there is no Absolute Truth, then it cannot be certain that your viewpoint is Absolutely True.Right??

theoldgrouch

Larry,You're wrong, as usual. I have never stated that there is “no Absolute Truth”; nor can I, nor do I, claim that what I present is “Absolutely True”, as you insist on doing with your notions of “God”. Rather, I have made the point that, for ALL humans – you and I included – Absolute Truth is a philosphical abstract, Absolutely Transcendent. It now seems as if I also am in need of making the corolary point that any claim on the part of ANY human being to having Absolute Truth is a logical fallacy.1. “Absolute” anything, including Truth, must also be Universal. That is, it must be without difference, distinction, or other modification at all times, everywhere.2. That which is Universal must have Universal expression. That is, it must have some word, phrase, or other human communicative that is also without difference, distinction, or other modification at all times, everywhere. 3. Any Universal expression must be not only be expressable/communicable without difference, distinction, or other modification at all times, everywhere, it also must be understandable Universally, without difference, distinction, or other modification at all times, everywhere.4. ALL humans are dependent upon language for all expression, communication, and understanding.5. NO human language has any Universal, either expressable/communicable or understandable, without difference, distinction, or other modification at all times, everywhere.6. Having NO Universal, expressable/communicable or understandable, without difference, distinction, or other modification at all times, everywhere, NO human language has any form of Absolute either.7. Therefore, NO human possesses, or expresses, “Absolute Truth”.If you disagree with the syllogistic outline given above, please “prove” it wrong, if you can. (And, just blathering about finding it in the Bible is NOT even “argument”, much less “proof” of anything.) Show us, if you can, that which is “Universal” in English; and then, show us how it is also “Universal” in Russian, Chinese, Spanish, Hebrew, Koine Greek, Classic Greek, Latin, Old Slavonic, etc., etc. Surely, Larry, if you have “certainty” that you know all there is to know about everything, you also know something as simple as that.

bellle

Grouch…..respectfully….your philosophy is very confusing.To simplify…..God is the SOURCE of TRUTH.Without God revealing Himself through His written word (through inspired men), we would have no idea what He is like, or what He expects of us.Much simpler (and more Truthful) than your philosophy; because it comes from God, and not from a human (Grouch).

Anonymous

Well, Larry, you’re just begging the question again; and assuming that your assertions somehow override, or supercede, logic, philosophy, and anything and everything else of which you are fundamentally ignorant, and both unwilling and unable to learn, simply because you are functionally illiterate. You just expect everyone to take YOUR word for it – whatever it be YOU have to say in the area of religion – as if, somehow, YOU were the current form of “Prophet Seer and Revelator” on earth, condescending to enlighten all those of us who have never had the benefit of YOUR superior . . . whatever. .

Larry, I’ve spent over 70 years studying religion. In that time, I’ve read the Scriptures of many forms of religion, as well as read the Bible – the WHOLE Bible, not just the Bowdlerized King James Version, although I read that regularly as well, since I do enjoy the poetic English – more times, in more languages – including the original Koine Greek of the New Testament – than many other people in this world have done, or ever will do. Additionally, I have read the fruits of some 2000 years of Christian Church history, Faith, Worship, Teaching, Witness, and Practice – many parts of which I have recommended to you in the past for your own edification and enlightenment – and some 50+ years ago I entered Eastern Orthodox Christianity, where I continue to study and learn from the Fathers of the Church, and those Orthodox writers of today, as well as participate in the Worship that the Communion of Saints – the Community of Faithful, Christ’s Living Body on Earth, His Church – has shared for some 2000+ years.

Along the way, I’ve experienced many another such as you, some in, and some out of, pulpits; all of whom have nothing new, nothing novel, and fundamentally nothing of interest to offer. All of whom – as with you – come along, more or less like one of those glib young pesky nuisances that knock on the door on occasion, to tell me how YOU know more than anyone else about “what God thinks”, and “how God wants” this and that, and “what God is going to do” if everyone doesn’t immediately bow down before YOUR sudden revelation of how much smarter YOU are than all the rest of us; because YOU read a book – once, supposedly anyway – from cover to cover, in a translation of translations, and now know everything there is to know about religion, “God”, and all the “laws, rules, and regulations” YOU imagine “God” expects everyone else to follow.

And, exactly like you, they too expect people to take them seriously.

O.K. So, you are fully qualified to take over any empty pulpit in Protestantism, just like Blair, Falwell, Pat Robertson, Dobson, Haggard, et.al.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...